The message <006201c270b6$9a658b20$7bb1c150@AdrianFogarty>
from Adrian Fogarty <[log in to unmask]> contains these words:
> But that's primitive; I've over 17 gigabytes spare on my hard disk (in a
> 2000 computer) and I'm sure many of you have much more. My internet connects
> at 500 kilobits per second, so it'll shift a 19kb file in 0.3 seconds. And
> if you're receiving gobbledegook, doesn't that mean that your system has the
> problem, not mine! Should we really be held back to the lowest common
> denominator, in terms of capacity, rather than moving forwards?
Umm NO! Why should I buy a bigger (?better???) faster computer just
because yours belches out crud, not content? New computers, with their
attendant bloatware are often not much faster than the old. The newly
increased capacity seems only to provide more room & speed for frilly
junk.
I am posting from an old computer at home (with a 2Gb hard drive, 1/3 of
which is free) but I'm putting off getting a replacement as the old one
functions OK and new computers are being superceded very fast. Given
that I have secondary progressive MS, the money and work will not go on
for ever.
The same applies to our colleagues overseas, who might not have the
latest kit but would still benefit from genuine debate.
I have nothing against the use of the latest equipment where it actually
improves functioning. Bulky, bloaty postings do not.
--
Helen D. Vecht: [log in to unmask]
Edgware.
|